Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27599482›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2016

Canine atlantoaxial optimal safe implantation corridors - description and validation of a novel 3D presurgical planning method using OsiriX™.

Guillaume Leblond, Luis Gaitero, Noel M Moens, Alex Zur Linden, Fiona M K James, Gabrielle Monteith, John Runciman

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guillaume LeblondDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Luis GaiteroDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada. lgaitero@uoguelph.ca.
Noel M MoensDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Alex Zur LindenDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Fiona M K JamesDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Gabrielle MonteithDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
John RuncimanSchool of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
University of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCanine ventral atlantoaxial (AA) stabilization is most commonly performed in very small dogs and is technically challenging due to extremely narrow bone corridors. Multiple implantation sites have been suggested but detailed anatomical studies investigating these sites are lacking and therefore current surgical guidelines are based upon approximate anatomical landmarks. In order to study AA optimal safe implantation corridors (OSICs), we developed a method based on computed tomography (CT) and semi-automated three-dimensional (3D) mathematical modelling using OsiriX™ and Microsoft®Excel software. The objectives of this study were 1- to provide a detailed description of the bone corridor analysis method and 2- to assess the reproducibility of the method. CT images of the craniocervical junction were prospectively obtained in 27 dogs and our method of OSIC analysis was applied in all dogs. For each dog, 13 optimal implant sites were simulated via geometrical simplification of the bone corridors. Each implant 3D position was then defined with respect to anatomical axes using 2 projected angles (ProjA). The safety margins around each implant were also estimated with angles (SafA) measured in 4 orthogonal directions. A sample of 12 simulated implants was randomly selected and each mathematically calculated angle was compared to direct measurements obtained within OsiriX™ from 2 observers repeated twice. The landmarks simulating anatomical axes were also positioned 4 times to determine their effect on ProjA reproducibility.

resultsOsiriX could be used successfully to simulate optimal implant positions in all cases. There was excellent agreement between the calculated and measured values for both ProjA (ρc = 0.9986) and SafA (ρc = 0.9996). Absolute differences between calculated and measured values were respectively [ProjA = 0.44 ± 0.53°; SafA = 0.27 ± 0.25°] and [ProjA = 0.26 ± 0.21°; SafA = 0.18 ± 0.18°] for each observer. The 95 % tolerance interval comparing ProjA obtained with 4 different sets of anatomical axis landmarks was [-1.62°, 1.61°] which was considered appropriate for clinical use.

conclusionsA new method for determination of optimal implant placement is provided. Semi-automated calculation of optimal implant 3D positions could be further developed to facilitate preoperative planning and to generate large descriptive anatomical datasets.

Indexed as

AnimalsArthrodesisAtlanto-Axial JointBone ScrewsDog DiseasesDogsJoint InstabilityTomography, X-Ray ComputedAtlantoaxial jointAtlantoaxial surgeryCanineComputed tomographyNeurosurgical methodsThree-dimensional

Identifiers

PMID27599482
PMCPMC5012052
OpenAlexW2511185996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.